old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,773
- 5,864
I thought I read somewhere that Rosen had long-haul covid, but now I can't find any reference to it, so maybe it was someone else.
Prospect Info: F Isak Rosen (14th Overall, 2021), Recalled 11/18/24
- Thread starter LastWordArmy
- Start date
sabregoat
Registered User
Jacob582
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2012
- 10,164
- 3,776
And Tage Thompson
Willgamesh
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2019
- 1,247
- 1,244
And Josh Allen. People judge athletes way too early in their careers/development. Don't give up on 19 year olds.
This was always a long haul project pick. Everyone knew it because we were explicitly told so.
Patience young Padawans, Patience.
I like that they were willing to go out and take a high risk, high reward player. Now we need to wait and see.
Patience young Padawans, Patience.
I like that they were willing to go out and take a high risk, high reward player. Now we need to wait and see.
jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,392
- 8,203
The point remains, most productive NHLers are typically productive in their draft year. I don't know if Rosen will be good or not, but it would be nice to have that production rather than having to wait for it, and hoping for another exception to the rule.
Is the reward on Rosen much higher than the other guys selected around him?
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,579
- 7,011
This is correct. Measured and concerned. I think it’s reasonable to be pessimistic about Rosen working out based on historical data. It’s also reasonable to be frustrated that the Sabres, who haven’t drafted a 1st round goalie since Mika Norenen, and whose biggest organizational weakness is in goal, didn’t take either of two high probability goalies with a free pick in a weak draft. That is a legitimate gripe.
That doesn’t mean I hate Rosen or think he’s a bust already. But he was a low probability pick at the time. And his D+1, although interrupted by illness and injuries (which also isn’t irrelevant for a small player), was by all historical measurements, pretty bad.
So, pessimistic but undecided seems like a fair stance.
It was at the time, compared to other forwards. No one predicted the pop that Othmann or Johnston would have, otherwise Othmann would have been a top 10-11 pick, and Johnston would have been a top 5-6 pick.
The guys you can fairly compare Rosen to who were universally ranked in that range were fellow countrymen Lysell and Olausson, as well as Svechkov, Bolduc, Bourgault, and Othmann. And right now, although several of those other guys may be ranked higher in the prospect rankings after their D+1 season, Othmann is the only guy who would be the absolute consensus #1 atop that field of 7 forwards.
I was able to get the article (I emailed the author who was very nice) - I did the best I could trying to find a translation but it's still not perfect. Seems like his finger injury was worse than we thought, plus he had some illness. If anybody else can get a better translation I attached the original file as well.
Interesting. And if you couple injury, illness and him not being on the optimal team/league for his development (which head scout Jerry Forton said recently), I think there's enough reason there to give Rosen the benefit of the doubt for one more season before we start solidifying our judgement of him.
>>which head scout Jerry Forton said recently
Do you happen to remember where you heard that? I believe you - I just want to listen to it myself.
Yup, it was in this episode.
Puckfeed: Home
Discover the latest videos on Puckfeed, your best resource for NHL video content.
www.puckfeed.com
We used a 1st rounder no one else would have given us for Risto in the 1st place, I honestly don’t mind taking a home run swing at Rosen and still think skill will win out in the end. SHL is a notoriously difficult league for teenagers to play in, the coaches don’t trust them so they get no ice time or linemates. It’s way too early to judge this kid.
It really does seem like everything that could've gone wrong for him this year, did. The D+1 season is so important in my opinion, so a shame that he missed out on a lot of it. Here's to hoping he can rebound in a big way.
Matt Ress
Don't sleep on me
The best part (I think I read this right) was that the injury time gave him an opportunity to gain strength that he wouldn't have otherwise been able to do in-season.
Satanphonehome
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2015
- 1,088
- 1,685
So William Eklund scored 1 goal in 28 SHL games this year compared to Rosen’s 2 in 28 games.
Lucas Raymond had 6 in 34 games in his D+1 year. Alexander Holtz had 9 in 40. Lias Anderson had 9 in 42.
Those guys were all top 7 NHL picks.
I guess my question is what 19-year-olds are you talking about? How many D+1 players do get regular SHL ice time? Elias Petterson is the only one I could find recently who could score consistently in the SHL.
Last edited:
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,579
- 7,011
Raymond, Eklund, and Anderson all produced at higher than .5 ppg pace. Holz was just under at .45.
Rosen was at .14
Don’t do this. You can make the argument that his historically bad production is the product of things outside his control and about which we shouldn’t be worried, but you CANNOT make the argument that his production wasn’t abnormally poor for his draft slot. It was.
Satanphonehome
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2015
- 1,088
- 1,685
Sure, but compared to who?
How many mid-1st forwards spend their D+1 year in the SHL?
The sample size is minuscule. It’s like comparing Alex Nylander to all the other D+1 AHL seasons by top 10 picks in the past 10 years.
Rosen’s so hard to quantify because he’s an outlier.
I’m not so sure this is the take you think it is. A quick search of recent drafts do show quite a bit of first rounders playing in the SHL in their D+1 year and performing better than Rosen. I don’t have time at the moment to compile all of the stats but if I get a chance later on I’ll try to do that.
jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,392
- 8,203
Limited by some apsects of the data, so I'm sure some names are missing based on spelling but:
From 2007-2017 there were 57 guys that played 15+ games their d+1 year in SHL. (at least whose names match in the pick224 and hockeyreference databases)
Rosen scored .14 pts/gm in his d+1 year, which would be 41st out of those players.
A list of guys under .5 pts per game from this time period, who played 100+ games in the NHL:
Limited minutes and and injury are not a recipe for points, but like bluth said, his production was objectively well below what you would want from a 14th pick, whether or not there are legitimate explanations
From 2007-2017 there were 57 guys that played 15+ games their d+1 year in SHL. (at least whose names match in the pick224 and hockeyreference databases)
Rosen scored .14 pts/gm in his d+1 year, which would be 41st out of those players.
A list of guys under .5 pts per game from this time period, who played 100+ games in the NHL:
Limited minutes and and injury are not a recipe for points, but like bluth said, his production was objectively well below what you would want from a 14th pick, whether or not there are legitimate explanations
GOALOFSSON
Game Changer
Eklund was the first guy whose stats I checked after that comment and thought it was pretty funny.
Also hear this in my head everytime I read Rosén's name
Um... sorry guys that's actually the entire point.
"Historically bad" is also going overboard again.
buffalowing88
Registered User
This is as good of an assessment as I've read.
I hope it works out for him but I don't like when fans are defensive of every prospect because it "tAkEs tImE" to develop. Sure it does, but this was an insanely risky pick on a guy built more like a Hollywood actress than a professional athlete. We'll see where it goes...
truthbluth
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2011
- 7,579
- 7,011
Eklund was the first guy whose stats I checked after that comment and thought it was pretty funny.
Also hear this in my head everytime I read Rosén's name
Um... sorry guys that's actually the entire point.
"Historically bad" is also going overboard again.
“Historically bad” is an accurate description of his production, which I’ve explained above. If you’d like to argue this point, I encourage you to present a examples of worse D+1 seasons for top 15 drafted forwards.
I did NOT say Rosen was a bust. And I have acknowledged that there are factors that could explain his poor production.
That he had a very poor statistical season is not arguable. You can have one of three conclusions about it.
It means nothing
It means something
It means everything
To me, it means something. Cause for concern at least. Feel free to argue that it means nothing, I just disagree.
Last edited:
